Munawar Faruqui Case: Indore Court Refuses Second Bail Plea Of Co-Accused Sadaqat Khan

The Additional Sessions Judge Yatindra Kumar Guru rejected Khan's Second Bail Plea, which was moved on the basis of "parity" as Faruqui has already been granted interim bail by the Apex Court on Friday (05^th February).

In the Bail Rejection Order, the Judge has noted that there has been no change in circumstances after his first bail plea was rejected and so, in such a scenario if his Second Bail Application is allowed, it would amount to a 'review' of the previous order and which is not permissible under the criminal law.

The Court also noted the submission of the APP that Faruqui has been granted only 'Interim Bail' by the Apex Court and thus, the benefit of parity cannot be given to Khan while considering his 'Regular Bail Plea'.

In this backdrop, the Court observed observed that it cant be said that circumstances have changed just because co-accused Munawar Faruqui has been granted interim bail by the Apex Court.

Significantly, Khan's bail plea was opposed by the Tukoganj police by contending before the Court that khan has been organizing similar shows on social media and that various complaints have been filed against him in the state of Uttar Pradesh as well as in Mumbai. It was also argued that Khan had been organising "such programmes" with Munawar for quite some time.

Police also said they have a video clip showing Khan recording Faruqui's programme and this video is on his phone. They also feared a law-and-order situation if he is released on Bail.

Noting all the arguments, lastly, the Court refused to grant him Bail.

It may be noted that Khan has been charged for offences under Sections 295-A, 298, 269, 188 r/w 34 of the IPC.

Faruqui, a resident of Gujarat, was arrested on 02^nd January along with four others (including Sadaqat Khan) for allegedly making indecent remarks against Hindu deities and against Union Home Minister Amit Shah during a show held at a cafe in 56 Dukan area of Indore on January 1.

The complaint in this matter was filed by one Eklavya Singh Gaur, who happens to be the son of local BJP legislator Malini Laxman Singh Gaur.

Further, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) last month, while reserving orders on the bail application of comedian Munawar Faruqui had said,

"But why you take undue advantage of other's religious sentiments and emotions. What is wrong with your mindset? How can you do this for the purpose of your business?"

Subsequently, on 28^th January, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench dismissed the bail applications filed by comedian Munawar Faruqui and co- accused Nalin Yadav, who were arrested on January 2 for allegedly hurting religious sentiments during their comic show.

A single bench Justice Rohit Arya said that "no case is made out for grant of bail".

The Court said that it was not commenting on the merits of the case as investigation was under progress. However, the materials collected so far suggested prima facie commission of the offence.

The judge noted in the order:

"The evidence/material collected so far, suggest that in an organized public show under the garb of standup comedy at a public place on commercial lines, prima facie; scurrilous, disparaging utterances, outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens of India with deliberate intendment, were made by the applicants."

Further, on 05^th February, the Supreme Court granted ad-interim bail to comedian Munawar Faruqui in a case registered by Madhya Pradesh police for alleged hurting of religious sentiments.

"The learned counsel has pointed out to us that quite apart from the fact that the allegations made in the FIR are vague that the procedure contained in Section 41 Cr.P.C. as adumbrated by our Judgment in "Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.", reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, has not been followed before arresting the petitioner. This being the case, we issue notice in both the petitions, and stay the Judgment of the High Court. The petitioner is released on ad-interim bail on conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court"